avathAram

[Guest guest]

Salutations to all !

 

I would like to add to this discussion regarding the avathArams.

 

a) vEdAntins would not find it tenable to accept budDha as

an avathAram, because it denies the very existence of something

called "Athman" (let alone paramAthman). I think all vEdAntins

(advaithins, vishishtAdvaithins and dvaithins) do not accept the

"nairAtmavAdam" of the boudDhamatham.

 

And I dont think, a budDhist too would find it tenable to accept

budDha as an avathAram.

 

My guess is that at some point in History (may be jayadhEva of

ashtapadhi fame) a need for such a synthesis was felt, and it was

done. I dont think we have a pramANa for accepting budDha as an

avathAram. On the contrary we have a number of pramANas listing

the dashAvathAras explicitly, such as svAmi dEsikan's sthotram.

 

b) Let us consider the motivation for Him to descend as an avathAram.

 

i) Someone already mentioned that it is a part of His leela (sport)

ii) I would also like to recall that famous verse in Gita:

 

"parithraNAya sAdhUnAm vinAshAya cha dhushkruthAm

^^^

dharmasamsthApanArThaya samBhavami yuge yuge"

 

Observe the word cha (AND). It is not vA (OR). He Himself says that

"I manifest myself (descend as an avathAram) to

1) protect the good,

2) destroy the evil

AND

3) to well-establish the dharma"

 

How can

He, who is the essence of the vEdas

descend as an avathAra of

budDha, who rejected the vEdas ?

 

If He did, would not He not be contradicting reason #3 ?

 

I am sure the learned scholars in this group will see

this logic, and establish the truth.

 

c) This is not directly relevant to this topic. But I thought I should

share this with the group. I remember a discourse (I think Sri Krishna

Premee's) where a witty and humourous samadhAnam was answered to this

hypothetical question:

 

Question: Why does He not take avathArams these days ? After all some

of our politicians are worse than rAvaNa and the other asurAs !

 

Answer: True, there may be some people today, who could match the

asuras of yore. Yet, he does not take an abvathAram. In that

Gitashloka, He also has another condition - "to protect the good" !

May be, there is not a single "good" person; for otherwise how would

He (who rushed to the rescue of Gajendra, Prahlada and Draupadi)

keep quiet ? Probably there are "good" persons too; but they dont seem

to ask Him for help with full confidence in Him ! That's why He

has gone "out of business" these days !

 

vAchaka dOshaha kshanthavyAha.

 

adiyEn maDhurakavidhAsan,

Ramesh Srinivasaraghavan

[Guest guest]

I think the point made by Parimala Rangarajan was

a good one. I.e., that Buddha may not be acceptable

as an avataaram in the context of the Vedas, but may

be acceptable in a universal sense. I see no contradiction

in this. Truth is not limited by the text of the Vedas.

The Buddha propagated enormous truths -- ahimsa, the middle

path, etc., which have become part of the global Indian

culture. In addition, he was rebelling against the

decadent, mindless ritualism that even Sri Geetacharyan

speaks against.

 

So, while we may not worship him in the same way

Rama or Krishna are worshipped, he can be revered

as one who reestablished some of the cardinal principles

of dharma, which, after all, do not depend on the

text of the Vedas for their truth.

 

Mani